F,~

46-16FPI1-X40c 1A/-{SJ

•.... Environment Environnement... Canada Canada

Forestry ServiceService des ForelS

ISSN 0704-772X

REPORT OF THE 1979 CANUSA COOPERATIVE

Bacillus thuringiensis B. T SPRAY TRIALS

O.N. MORRIS

~~. canulaCanadaUnited States.Spr.uce.-BJ.tdwonn.s.Program

FOREST PEST MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE'

SAULT STE MARIE, ONTARIOREPORT FPM-X-40

JUNE 1980·

_,/1. I

j.i'.I'.'.?'f.~... . ~

" ~.: .. ,...•'h' ... ",

• ~1~:.:.:; ,

, J

;'t.

\'.' ...fl.-.

.~::! .

p',

I ....

I· i •

ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

O.N. Morris (Chairman) Forest Pest Management Institute Sault Ste.Marie Canadian Forestry Service

D.G. Grimble (Co-chairman), Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,USDA Forest Service, Broomall, Pa •

J.R. Carrow, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Maple, Ontario

C.A. Miller, Maritimes Forest Research Centre, Fredericton,N.B.

J.B. Dimond, University of Maine, Orono, Maine

M.M. Pelletier, Quebec Energy and Resources, Quebec, P.Q.

LIST OF COOPERATORS

FieZd TriaZs

'f

" /.~I '"n

'i,t

"

J.R. CarrowC.A. MillerT.D. SmithJ.B. Dimond and C.J. SpiesJ.Y. Connor and H. TrialM.M. PelletierR.G. Lidstone

, N.E. Carter

Support Activities

- Ontario Min. Nat. Res.- Maritimes Forest Research Centre- Nova Scotia Lands and Forests- Univ. of Maine, Orono- Maine Forest Service- Quebec Energ1 and Resources- Forest Protection Ltd.,

New Brunswick- Newfoundland Forest Resources

and Lands

O.N. Morris and A. Moore, Canadian Forestry ServiceP.G. Fast, Canadian Forestry ServiceA.P. Randall and A. Moore, Canadian Forestry-ServiceW.A. Smirnoff, Canadian Forestry ServiceA.M. Drummond, National Research Council, Canada

LIST OF APPENDICES

I Technical Recommendations, 1979

II Compatibility of Erio Acid Red XB 400 tracer dyewith commercial BaciZZus thuringiensis by O.N. Morris

Bioassay of commercial BaciUus thuringiensis with andwithout 0.025 g/t Erio Acid Red XB 400 dye vs sprucebudworm by O.N. Morris

Toxicity of Erio Acid Red XB 400 for spruce budworm byO.N. Morris

Comparison of spore deposits on Millipore filters andglass slides by O.N. Morris

Other spray program support activities by O.N. Morris

Memo - Environmentalists' concern with B.t. sprays byJ.A. ArmstTong

A comparative assessment of BaciZZus thuringiensisformulations for the NAE Flying Spot Scanner by A.M.Drummond

III Quality control bioassays of commercial BaciZZusthuringiensis pToducts by P.G. Fast

IV Instructions for sampling B.t. from shipping containersby W.A. Smirnoff

Viable spoTe counts of drum samples in commercialproducts by W.A. Smirnoff

Microscopic examination of larvae prior to and aftertreatment td determine sanitary condition of budwormpopulations by W.A. Smirnoff

V Cessna AG-truck calibration trials for the dispersal ofaqueous formulations of BaciZZus thuringiensis kurstakiin Newfoundland, 1979 by A.P. Randall, A. Moore and N.Carter

1',

~-' - _.... ---~.._---------------------

ABSTRACT

In 1979, a total of 44,499 hectares (109,912 acres) ofbalsam fir, Abies baLsamea~ white spruce, Picea gLauaa and redspruce, Picea rubens forest stands in Eastern Canada and United.States infested with the spruce budworm, ChoItistoneura fumiferana~

were treated with several commercial preparations of BaciLLusthuItingiensis. The main aim was to limit defoliation to 50% ofthe current growth in the operational and experimental trials.The geographical locations included Newfoundland, Nova Scotia,New BrunSWick, Ontario, Quebec and Maine.

Fifty-five percent of all treatments in balsam fir andwhite spruce stands achieved the success criterion. Six of the7 treatments in red spruce stands were also successful. Dipel 8a(Dipel 4L) showed the highest success rate followed by Thuricidefollowed by Novabac. Limited environmental impact studies inNova Scotia supported the generally accepted belief that B.t.poses no undue hazard to terrestrial and aquatic non-targetorganisms.

Support studies by Canadian Forestry Service personnelincluding compatibility of tracer dyes with B. thuringiensis var.kurstaki~ batch quality control bioassays, budworm populationquality, aircraft calibration, droplet characterization anddeposit analyses are described.

Cost estimates for materials and applications ranged from$15.97 to $2l.94/ha in Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Newfound­land.

The total cost of the Nova Scotia project includingtemporary personnel salaries, tnavel, biocide, equipment purchasesand rentals, application, accommodation, target and non-targetmonitoring and egg mass survey was $48.35/ha.

The cooperative effort brought closer to fruition thegeneral acceptability of B.t. as an alternative to chemicalpesticides in spruce budworm control.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION. . •

2." SUPPORT ACTIVITIES.

. . . .. . . . .Page

1

2

3. EFFICACY OF FIELD TRIALS . • • . . • . . . .Orrtari,o - J. R. Ca2"2'OW • • • • • • • • • • • . • .Maine - J. Y. Connor and M. Trial • • • • • • • •University of Maine - J.B. Dimond and C.J. Spies.New Brunswick - FPL - R.G. Lidstone ••Newfoundland - N. E. Carter • • •Nova Scotia - C.A. Miller • •••••Quebec - M.M. Pelletier. . • • • • .

44455567

788

8'8

8999

• . •• 10. . . . ..

stream water • • • • • • • . • • • •(a) Moose River • • • • • • •••.• .(b) MacRae Brook and Baddeck River •

II. Clams and Oysters • • • • •C. Xylene • • • • • •D. Aquatic Insects • • • • • .E. Songbird Behaviour

5. COST ESTIMATES • . . . • • . 10

6. DISCUSSION. • . • • • . • • • . • . . . 10Comp~tive Efficacy of B.t. •••• • • • • .. 10Comp~tive Effectiveness of C01T1TIerciaZ Products. 11

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1980 TRIALS

TABLES AND DATA LISTS

APPENDICES

DISTRIBUTION LIST

. . . .. 12

II

t..

1. INTRODUCTION

The bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, has been isolatedfrom a variety of lepidopterous larvae from British Columbiaforest but not from the spruce budworm.

The first experimental aerial applications of Bacillusthruingiensis (B.t.) against the eastern spruce budworm werecarried out in New Brunswick, Canada, in 1960 using ThuricideS075 suspensions in water and in a water-in-oil emulsion1 • Fieldtrials continued in Canada and USA using a variety of water~based

commercial formulations and spray emission equipment up to 1978.The effectiveness of these treatments has always been unpredictablein terms of the short term tree protection from budworm damage andpopulation density reduction. This is explained partly by thefact that water-based formulations of insecticides tend to behighly subject to the meteorological conditions under which theyare applied resulting in unpredictable deposit efficiencies andthus unpredictable effectiveness. Another explanation relatesto the behaviour of the budworm itself. It inhabits a shelterduring its most susceptible stages of development (L3-L~). Thisis complicated by the fact that full bud flushing and L3-L~ arenot always synchronous and since the bacteria must' be ingested tobe effective, an asynchronous development of this type may resultin reduced effectiveness. Spruce budworm larvae are comparativelyhighly susceptible to B.t. and it is generally agreed that acceptableprotection for coniferous trees from budworm dama~e can beachieved under conditions of moderate population pressure and highdeposit efficiency at the feeding site.

In October 1978, the Canadian Forestry Service called ameeting of B.t. researchers and applicators with a view toformulating some guidelines for B.t. aerial applications and todocument information gaps which when filled would contribute tothe general acceptability of the product.

Subsequent to this meeting, O.N. Morris (FPMI) was namedthe Canadian Coordinttor for the 1979 B.t. spray trials andChairman of an International B. t. Advisory Committee with D.G.Grimble (USDA Forest Service) as Co-Chairman and U.S. Coordinator.The CFS Technical Recommendations were reviewed by the AdvisoryCommittee and submitted to cooperators in both countries withminor changes as the CANOSA Technical Guidelines (Appendix t).The present report summarizes the results of the laboratory andfield activities as a whole. It should show certain trends inthe effectiveness of B.t. for spruce budworm control based on theexisting state of the art and confirm certain deficiencies whichhave been apparent in the past.

IMorris, O.N., Angus, T.A., and Smirnoff, W.A. (1975). In "AerialControl of Forest Insects in Canada" (M.L. Prebble, ed.) pp.129-133.

- 2 -

2. SUPPORT ACTIVITIES

Early in the development of the cooperative spray programit was determined that implementation of certain support activitieswere necessary to assist some cooperators lacking expertise insome aspects of the field program. The support areas includedstudies on the compatibility of the recommended tracer dye (ErioAcid Red XB 400) with B.t., bioassays of drum samples of commercialproducts as batch quality control, calibration of spray aircraft,incidence of microsporidia in different geographical areas, drop­let characterization of various B.t. formulations, and Kromekotecard, Millipore filter and glass plate droplet analyses. Theseactivities were financially supported by the eastern componentof the CANUSA program.

The reports on the compatibility of the tracer dye andB.t.~ toxicity of the dye for spruce budworm, droplet analyses,and a comparison of spore deposits on glass slides and Milliporefilters are summarized in Appendix II. Included also is a memorelating to environmental concerns with the safety of certaincomponents of the recommended B.t. formulation and- an NRC reporton B.t. droplet characterization. The following conclusionswere drawn on the basis of these reports:

1. The dye concentration recommended for field applicationhad no significant effect on spore germination or on thetoxicity of B.t. to the budworm.

2. The tracer dye in the recommended concentration was nottoxic for budworm larvae.

3. The use of petri dishes and Millipore filters to estimatedeposits at ground level grossly Underestimates the actualdeposit of viable spores. A more accurate method ofestimatJng B.t. deposit is urgently needed. Assessment ofdeposits on foliage would be most desirable.

4. The generation of uniform droplet sizes which is necessaryfor determining spread factors of currently used formulationsof B.t. is almost impossible to achieve with present NRCtechnology. Also, the NRC Flying 'Spot Scanner does notaccurately record droplets below 50 ~m diameter, especiallywhen dye concentrations are below 2.0%. Until these techno­logical problems are solved, manual analysis of deposits oncards are more desirable.

One hundred and twenty-two (122) drum samples of Thuricide,Novabac and Dipel were bioassayed against L~ spruce budworm andthe potencies compared with a standard in-house Thuricide l6B.

t

- 3 -

The results (Appendix III) indicated wide variations. in potenciesbetween batches. However, the wide confidence l~its of thebioassays indicates that the precision of the assays was poor.Precision will be improved for future batch quality controlassays.

The procedure for sampling B.t. from shipping containers,results of viable spore counts and diagnoses of budworm larvaebefore and after spray applications are reported in Appendix IV.Unfortunately, the samples for analysis arrived later thanrequested so that the precision of the assays may have been com­promised. Also, some samples appeared to have been diluted beforesubmission. It was recommended that spore viability tests bedone prior to rather than after application in the future. Thegreatest variation between presumed activity and establishedactivity based on spore counts occurred in Dipe1 88 oil formu­lation (ABG 6103). This apparent difference was not reflectedin the bioassay data, however, (Appendix III) where the pooledrelative potency for this product indicated higher activity than7 pooled batches of Thuricide and 2 pooled batches of Novabac.This suggests that the use of spore counts as a basis of insecti­cidal activity of B.t. is inadequate.

The incidence of microsporidia in budworm populationsfrom Newfoundland and New Brunswick ranged from 20 to 55%. Theextent to which this parasite influences treatment mortality inthese populations is unknown.

The collaborative study between the Forest Pest ManagementInstitute and the Newfoundland Department of Forest Resourcesand Lands produced a new technique for aircraft calibrationparticularly useful at airstrips where even minimal contaminationby spray material is prohibited (Appendix V). The reportemphasized the need for calibration of aircraft with the spraymaterial (not water) prior to application. It recommendedestablishment of a scandard set of application and depositefficiency criteria as a baseline for future research onB.t.spray deposit/efficacy. A technique using an inexpensive plasticcollector tube in the calibration of aircraft is described.Interested parties may request clearer photographic prints fromthe author, (Randall et al.).

MiXing of commercial water-based B.t. was improved byadding the B.t. to water rather than vice versa. Distilled waterwas more efficient than toluene, benzene or several concentrationsof ethanol for removing B.t. deposits from glass slides. Centrifu­gation or filtration of washed deposits prior to spectrophotometricanalysis increased net deposit estimates by 78% due to lightscatter by the suspended B.t. particles. The 0.025% dye con­centration recommended was too low for the most precise colorimetricanalysis. A fluorescent dye would provide a much more precisemeasurement.

- 4 -

3. EFFICACY OF FIELD TRIALS

Table 1 lists the main technical recommendations asfollowed by the cooperators and the formulations used. Ingeneral, the recommendations were adhered to, and when they werenot, extenuating circumstances frequently encountered in aerialapplications prevented adherence. For example, ideal budwormdevelopment and droplet density for B.t. application are notentirely controllable in semi-operational trials. The criterionof "less than 30 larvae/branch" is probably totally impracticalunder such circumstances. A statement to the effect that B.t.treatment can be expected to be less effective under high popu­lation pressure would have been more reasonable. Only Nova Scotiaand Quebec provided data on bud density so that a comparison ofstand quality between all geographic locations is not possible.The number of current balsam fir buds per 45 cm. branch tipranged from 175 to 227 in Nova Scotia compared with 30 to 98 inQuebec. This will explain partly the greater overall treatmentefficacy in Nova Scotia compared with Quebec. The actual reportsof the cooperators were too lengthy a package for inclusion inthis report. Instead, data from each report are presented ontechnical data sheets. Full reports are probably available fromthe individual cooperators.

Ontario - J.R. Carrmr1

Ontario treated 3,860 ha with Thuricide l6B alone,Novabac alone and acephate (Orthene) followed by Novabac 8 dayslater (Table 2). Satisfactory results were obtained on balsamfir treated once or twice with 10 BIU/4.7 1/ha of Thuricide l6B.Foliage protection on white spruce was unsatisfactory. Bestresults were always achieved with early treatments (peak L4).Many of the failures were apparently due to poor weather conditionsduring spray time resulting in very mixed deposit efficienciesat ground leve1. The technique of applying acephate followed byNovabac 8 days later to very high populations (45/branch) wasineffective both:: in terms of population density reduction and infoliage protection.

Maine - J. Y. Connor and M. Trial-

Maine treated 17,895 ha with Thuricide l6B, Thuricide 32Band Dipel 4L(88) (Table 3). Prespray larval densities/45 em.branch varied between 5 and 18 on white-red spruce and between13 and 26 ~n balsam fir. The Thuricide treatments providedsatisfactory protection on white spruce but not on balsam firwhich is the reverse of teh results from Ontario. Dipel 88 gavesatisfactory protection on both tree species. Ground level

I

iJiI1,)

1•

Ii1~z,I'

"1<

f

- 5 -

deposits in all treatments were well below previously setacceptable standards. The generally good results achievedindicate that.ground deposit rates do not always correlate withtreatment efficacy.

University of Maine - J.B. Dimond and C.J. Spies

UMO applied by helicopter Thuricide l6B alone, Thuricidel6B + Chitinase and Thuricide 16B plus Acephate each to 5 repli­cates of 40 ha (Table 4). Prespray population densities at peakL~ were extremely high ranging from 67 to 72/45 cm branch onbalsam fir and 25 to 27 on red spruce. Ground deposit rates werewell below the set standard of 25 droplets/em2 .for all treatments.Heavy rain followed some applications. Under the conditions ofthese tests the addition of chitinase to B.t. tank mixes did notsignificantly enhance the effectiveness of the B.t. The additionof Acephate appeared to be slightly superior to B.t. alone inpopulation reduction and foliage protection but further evaluationwas considered necessary to confirm this. In spite of the veryhigh budworm numbers, all three treatments saved roughly 50% offoliage on both fir and spruce, possibly due to the efficiency ofthe helicopter spray equipment in depositing the insecticide onthe trees.

NebJ Brunswick - FPL - R.G. Lidstone

New Brunswick applied Thuricide l6B (20 BIU/ha) to 5replicate 40 ha plots and Dipel 88 (40 BIU/ha) and Dipel 45B(22 BIU/ha) to 80 ha plots at L~-L5 larval development. Popu­lation densities ranged from 38-44/45 cm branch on white spruce,20-26 on balsam fir and 6-19 on red spruce (Table 5). Heavyrains followed the Thuricide sprays. With the exception ofbalsam fir in the Thuricide blocks, all treatments limiteddefoliation of current growth of the three tree species to lessthan 50%. Foliage protection due to treatment was zero inThuricide blocks compared with 20-54% in Dipel blocks. Theauthor speculated that the level of protection in the Dipel blocksmay have been enhanced by drift from a nearby aminocarb-treatedblock.

NebJfoundZand - N.E. Carter

Newfoundland treated 5,650 ha with Thuricide l6B, 60 hawith Thuricide 24BA, 80 ha with Thuricide 24BC and 80 ha withNovabac 45B (Table 6). Population densities in all the balsamfir treatment blocks were low (5-11 larvae/45 em. branch). Larval

- 6 -

development was late (L5-L6) for all treatments. Defoliationwas limited to less than 50% in the Thuricide 24BA, BC andNovabac treatment blocks but not in the Thuricide l6B block.However, foliage protection due to treatment was low to non­existent in all treatment areas in spite of the low populationdensities. The author concluded that a single late (L5-L6)application of B.t. even against low population densities onbalsam fir in Newfoundland was inadequate for acceptable treeprotection.

Nova Scotia - C.A. Mit:Ler-

Nova Scotia treated 2,760 ha of red spruce stands inCumberland County and 1,800 ha of balsam fir in Victoria County,with single or double applications of Thuricide l6B (Table 7).The CANUSA technical recommendations were followed. Prespraybud-density tallies indicated that the test trees were wellfoliated in spite of previous heavy defoliation. Larval develop­ment at spray time was peak L4 on balsam fir and L4 to L6 on redspruce but bud flush was <50% on red spruce compared with 100%on balsam fir. Spray deposit efficiency was high for all appli­cations. Larval densities ranged from 12 to 22/45 cm branch onred spruce and 24-35 on balsam fir. Defoliation on all sprayplots ranged from 9% to 19% which was considerably below the50% limit aimed for. The following conclusions were made bythe author:

1. Single or double applications of Thuricide l6B protectedboth balsam fir and red spruce from unacceptabledefoliation of current growth.

2. Two applications of 10 BIU/4.73 1/ha gave better pro­tection of balsam fir than one application of 20 BIU/9.4 1/ha. If one application is proposed for futuretteatments, consideration should be given to 'increasingthe emitted rate above 20 BIU/ha.

3. Ten or 20 BIU/ha application rate protected red sprucestands from unacceptable defoliation whether appliedearly when current buds were protected by scales orlate when current needles were flaring.

It is noteworthy that good protection of red spruce was alsoachieved in Maine (Table 4) and in New Brunswick (Table 5). Theexplanation for these successes on only partially flared redspruce trees is obscure.

- 7 -

Quebeo - M.M. PeLLetie~

Single applications of Thuricide 32B, Novabac and Dipel88 were applied to a total of 10,674 ha of balsam fir. Formu­lations of Thuricide and Novabac contained sorbitol and chitinaseand Dipel contained chitinase. Population densities were moderateranging from 10-15 larvae/45 cm branch. Bud densities on balsamfir ranged from 30 to 87/45 em branch. Dipel and Novabac limiteddefoliation to 34% and 48% respectively and were most effectivein terms of foliage protection due to treatment. Defoliation onthe Thuricide 32B plots ranged from 57-58%. The lower efficacyof Thuricide here compared with the results in Nova Scotia wasunexpected in view of the higher population densities and higherbud densities in the Nova Scotia balsam fir stands~ Ground levelcolony counts were high in both sets of trials. In Quebec, Dipel88 treatment gave the best protection in spite of low colonycounts on petri dishes at ground level (6.6/em2). Colony countson Millipore filters were considerably higher (40/cm2) suggestingthat the filters may be more efficient collectors than petridishes. The extruding strands of the filters are probably .efficient collectors of small droplets. Also, theOMilliporeswere incubated on trypticase soy agar which is known to be abetter growth medium for B.t. than the nutrient agar used inpetri dishes. Even with the filters, the colony counts werelowest in the Dipel block. The droplet spectrum Qf Dipel (97%less than 75 ~m) was, however, also the smallest of all treatmentsand it is expected that such droplet size would deposit at groundlevel less efficiently than larger ones.

4. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THURICIDE 16B

by

R.D. Smith, C.A. Miller, K.R. Rosee,A.S. M~non, D. MacKay, P. MacDonald,P. Germain, D.G. Embree & R.M. Bulmer

Concurrently with their tests of efficacy of B.t. forspruce bUdworm, the Nova Scotia Department of Lands and Forestsconducted five non-target studies. These included 1) Virus en­hancement tests; 2) Recovery of B. thu~ngiensis var. kurstakiin the aquatic environment; 3) Environmental monitoring withparticular reference to the xylene component of Thuricide; 4) Impactof B.t. sprays on songbirds; 5) Impact of B.t. sprays on aquaticfauna. The 266-page document detailing this study is availablefrom the senior author (T.D. Smith). The salient points f~om thereport are as follows:

!:

I

i

'I!;1

~ I

- 8 -

A. Hwnan Heatth (Virus Enhancement)

Although B.t.k. is regarded as safe from a human stand­point, when used correctly, viral enhancement data were notavailable. Therefore, a virus enhancement study was initiated.The virus used for this study was Vesicular stomatitis virus l

(Indiana Strain). This virus is reported to be the more sensitive;as a biological indicator of disfunctions of the group of virusesassociated with Reye's Syndrome (encephalopathey with fattychange or degeneration of the viscera). The optimum concentrationlevels of chemicals for virus enhancement are just less thantoxic. Initial studies of the B.t.k. formulation indicated avirus enhancement index of 2.2 at a concentration level of 2,500ppm. The B.t.k. formulation was applied at a concentration levelof 0.094 ppm. This application concentration level was 26,315times less than that required for the virus enhancement index of2.2. By way of comparison in a similar study, fenitrothion hasa virus enhancement index of 2.49 at a concentration level of2.5 ppm. Based on these data, the risk for virus enhancementassociated with the use of B.t.k. is minimal.

B. Water and She1:lfish

I. Presence of BaciZZus thuringiensis wstaki in streamwater.

(a) Moose River

Baci~~us thuringiensis wstaki was recovered from bothsurface and sub-surface water samples from the Moose Riversampling sites at a level ranging from 20 to 70 colonies per mlof sample during the period of aerial spray application from June15 to June 18, 1979. No B.t.k. was detected in any water samples .after June 18, 1979.

(b) MacRae Brook and Baddeck River4

8aci~~us thuringiensis kurstaki was collected from June13 to June 26 at MacRae Brook sampling sites and on June 21 at200 feet above Red Bridge over the Baddeck River. No B.t.k. wasfound at other sampling sites. No B.t.k. was found in the McPhee

IVesicular stomatitis is a disease pathogen of cattle, swine andhorses and is communicable to man. The disease, caused by thisfilterable virus, has similar symptoms to foot-and-mouth diseaseand is characterized by blisters on the nose, lips and especiallythe tongue and mucus membrane of the mouth. In Nova Scotia, thisdisease pathogen is found only in controlled university cultures.

1.

- 9 -

cow's milk samples or Baddeck water supply. The recovery ofB.t.k. eleven days after the last application of the sprayindicates that it is persistent in the aquatic environment.

II. Clams and Oysters

The salt water clam and oyster fisheries are importantlocal industries in Cumberland and Victoria Counties, respectively.Fresh water clams are filter feeders and are sensitive to lowconcentrations of xenobiotic chemicals and biocides. Fresh waterclams were absent in the streams of the experimental areas andestuarine clams and oysters were used to monitor the qualitativeand quantitative concentrations of the biocide. No B.t.k. wasrecovered from estuarine clams at Moose River and from estuarineclams and oysters at Brooks Pond.

c. XyLene

Xylene, a hydrocarbon solvent, is included in the B:t.k.formulation asa stabilizer to prevent the formulation fromseparating into different layers and comprises 1.5 percent ofthe spray formulation. Concern was expressed about the healthhazard of this chemical. The xylene component of 1.5 percentrepresents a volume of 1.71 ml/ha. In a forest canopy of 10 m,this is equal to 1.7 ppb of xylene. The occupational healthhazard level is 100 ppm of xylene. The application rate ofxylene in the spray formulation in a 10 m deep forest canopy is59,000 times below the occupational health hazard level.

Analytical techniques used to monitor stream water forthe presence of xylene enabled the detection of xylene at aconcentration level at or above 10 ppb. No xylene was detectedfrom stream water samples at this level.

4

D. Aquatic Insects

Aquatic insects are important components of the aquaticfood chain and food webs. Chemical insecticides can kill aquaticinsects or predispose them to lethal situations. In aquaticsystems chemical insecticides can be passed along food chains orbecome immobilized in the soils of stream beds. Concern wasexpressed on the effects of BaciLZus thuringiensis Kurstaki onaquatic insect fauna. Observed fluctuations in populationdensities of insect families could not be associated with that ofB.t.k. spray formulation.

'0

- 10 -

E. Songbird Behaviour

Many forest songbird species are insectivorous and may beaffected by insecticide through direct exposure or by eatingcontaminated food. One of the better methods of assessing thedirect impact of xenobiotic chemicals and biocides on birds isto monitor their singing behaviour before and after spraying.Observed fluctuations in the singing behaviour of songbirdscould not be associated with application of Bacillus thuringiensiskurstaki spray formulation.

5. COST ESTIMATES

The average cost of materials and application as reportedby Quebec, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Newfoundland ranged from$15.97 to $27.98/ha (Table 9). The total operational cost of theNova Scotia project including temporary personnel salaries, travel,biocide, equipment purchases and rentals, application, accommodation,target and non-target monitoring and egg mass survey was $48.35/ha.

6. 01 SCUSS ION

Comparative Efficacy of B. t.

Slightly more than half (55%) of the 1979 B.t. treatmentsmet the previously agreed minimum acceptable standard of 50% orless defoliation in white spruce and balsam fir stands (Table 10).Seven of the 22 white spruce and balsam fir treatments resultedin 50-60% defoliation. Whether these were considered acceptableprotection by cooperators was not made clear in their reports.Cooperators might want to compare their success rate with successrates of presently used conventional chemical pesticides as abasis for the acceptability of B.t. Six of the 7 (86%) treatmentsin red spruce stands met ..the criterion of success. This presentsan enigma since bud flaring was generally delayed and larvaldevelopment was generally advanced in red spruce stands at spraytime. It is obvious that research is needed to explain the highlevels of protection on this tree species.

Factors which apparently influenced the successful treat­ments included:

1. Prespray density (with one exception) all less than28 1arvae/45 cm. branch.

2. Larval development at spray time (with one exception),peak L4.

3. Percent bud flaring (with exception of red spruce),80-100%.

f

I

- 11 -

4. BIU/ha applied ranging from 20-40 in single or doubleapplications.

5. Ground level droplet density (with 3 exceptions) greaterthan 25/cm2 , based on Millipore filter data.

6. Spray t~e relative humidity mostly above 65%.

7. Weather conditions following spray application (withone exception), good.

Factors which apparently influenced poor results are:

1. High budworm prespray density - mostly in the29-72/branch range.

2. Advanced larval development at spray time - mostlyL~ to L6.

3. BIU/ha applied 20/ha nearly all in single application.

4. Heavy rains following application.

s. Low ground deposit (60% of treatments had 10 or lesscolonies/cm2)

Comparative Effectiveness of CommerciaZ Products •

Thuricide, Novabac and Dipel were compared as to theiroverall effectiveness on white spruce, balsam fir and red spruce(Table 11). Thuricide performed well on white spruce and redspruce but not on balsam fir. Novabac appeared to have performedslightly better on balsam fir than on white spDUce. Oipel 88performed well on all three species.

Droplet counts on nutrient agar and on cards wereapparently low for all Dipel 88 sprays but the Quebec trialssupplied the explanation. For them, Dipel 88 gave good treeprotection in spite of apparently low ground deposits on-bothKromekote cards and nutrient agar plates. This is explained bythe fact that the oil-water droplets released from the aircraftwould be expected to lose most or all of the water phase byevaporation by the time they reach the target site leaVingessentially a B.t.-in-oil droplet. B.t. is an obligate aerobe,i.e., it will not grow without air. Thus, the germination andreplication of the oil coated bacteria collected directly onnutrient agar would be restricted. The fact that 8 times as manycolonies grew on Millipore filters placed next to the agar platessupport this view. In the latter case, the oil in the impingingdroplet would readily absorb into the filter paper leaVing thebacterial spores exposed to the air resulting in good spore

It,

r

- 12 -

germination and replication when placed on nutrient agar. It isevident that while the agar plate collector may be used forwater-based formulation (e.g" Thuricide and Novabac) it shouldnot be used for Dipel 88 oil. When the B.t. oil droplet is in­gested, the oil would be broken down in the insect gut as readilyas are needle waxes, terpenes and other oils of the foliage.

Quebec recovered very low deposits on Kromekote cards intheir Dipel 88 plot. Ninety-eight percent of these droplets wereless than 75 ~m diameter (mean droplet size was not reported) andunless highly stained, which they were not, would be difficult orimpossible to observe on cards. Furthermore, such fine dropletsdo not quickly reach ground surface especially with some turbu­lence within the canopy after spray. It seems very likely thatthe droplets which Quebec eou1d not find on the ground weredeposited in the tree which would explain the h~gh level of foliageprotection with Dipel in that and other jurisdictions.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 1980 TRIALS

1. Coordination of B.t. spray trials should be continued foranother year. After that, a meeting of all CANUSA cooperatorsand scientists should be called to formalize B.t. sprayrecommendations.

2. Support activities carried out in 1979 should continue in1980, especially for those cooperators who lack appropriateexpertise. Batch quality control by bioassay, depositanalysis and population quality checks especially should besupported financially by CANUSA where needed.

3. Aircraft calibration with spray mixes prior to spray appli­cations is of crucial importance and should not be omittedin any spray trial.

4. Rhodamine B tracer dye has recently been confirmed as beingmutagenic in SatmoneZZa bacteria but Erio Acid Red 400 wasnot mutagenic (Dr. Ennis, PPMI). EAR-400 does not presentany known environmental hazard and can be used as a tracerdye in experimental applications for deposit assessment. Theuse of any tracer dye with B.t.~ however, should be avoidedin cases where precise ground deposit measurements are notneeded.

S. While the Nova Scotia experience indicated no non-targethazard from B.t. sprays in 1979, further environmental impactstudies are desirable.

I~

f

I

- 13 -

6. Research on an accurate method of estimating deposits onconiferous foliage is urgently needed and should be supportedon a high priority basis.

7. The mode of effectiveness of B.t. in red spruce stands shouldbe explored.

8. Since B.t. is an obligate aerobic bacterium, B.t.-oil formu­lations should not be collected directly on agar surface.Millipore filters are superior collecting surfaces sincethey will absorb the oil leaving spores exposed to air thusfacilitating germination and replication of the bacteria.

\

T~LE 1

KEY TEClINlCAL IlECOHHBNDlt.TIONS FOUOUED BY COOPERATORS

ltea Ontario Haine ND-FPL NP' HS Quebec UHO

ForaaulationsThurlcide 168 + + + + + +Thuricide 2leBA +Thuricide 24&C +Thur1.tlde 32B + +Hovabnc-3 + +Novabac-45B +Dipel A6G 6103 + + +D1pel 45 B +

<30 larvae/br. .:!: + + + + +Bud den91ty + +L3-L~ T1aa1PS + + + ± +2 Applications for + NA + HA NA

tuxed stands I

Hin. 25 dropleta/cm2 + ± + + .-~

Batch quality check + + + + + + +Tracer dye + + + + +Fettes method-def. + + + + + + +Cost estimate + + + + +Weather data -f +. + + + +

UKO - University of Maine!. partly achievedHit. • not applicable

iJ!:t;... .SS,....... 1 , '--\- Z.=c:=

TABLE 2

EFFICACY OF 1979 B.t. TRIALS - ONTARIO

LARVAL APPL. RATE.DENSITY, BIU/HA TOTAL PERCENTAGE

FORMULATION Per Br (NO. APPLS.) Pop. Red. Defol. Protect:1on

NOVABAC-32B wS 34-55 39.6 (2) 8 - 81 47 - 92 0-44(5 plots) •

THURICIDE 16B wS 9; bF 13 10.9 (1) 64; 94 12; 7 84; 91

THURICIDE 16B wS 29; bF 16 18.8 (2) 19; 64 63; 55 17; 23

ACEPHATE- 9.9 oz,NOVABAC 32B wS 47; bF 25 20 BIU 65; 86 69; 80 19; 0

THURICIDE 16B wS 27 18.6 (2) 43 - 63 12 - 38 49 - 84

THURICIDE 16B wS 42 19.8 (2) 48 91 0

- 16 -

DATA FOR. !ACll SPlIAY IlLOCIt !lEQU!STED FOR. CAHUSA IlEPOtr

1. ProviDee or Staco

Z. Ana - acroa (ba)

3. SCaCus - operacioll41 or upoNelltal

4. rro-apny luval dOllllicy/18" br4llch

S. Pre-apray bud deuicy (pel' aa)6. Spray c1llle lalL'Val davelopaut

7. Porcellt bud fluall at apray cilllO(., treo specioa)

8. B.C. fOnlUla~ion 4Ild trade 0••

9. 8DJ app11ad/acro (ha)

10. ~acOl: dye lISod

11. Applied volume raco/acre (ha)

11. lfumber of appUcacloaa

13. Tial. batvaa appUcadollll (daya)

14. Aircrafc typc!l lI..d

15. Hot:d. ayn_ used(boo1a • lloulo. Cl1ctoll&1~. atc.)

16. Predca1llftDt tree .pocie.

17. Date .pray startod

18. Date apray f1A1llbed

19. Kat c0n4it1clla at apray t1me

ZOo Kat cotldit1ou follov1llS apr., (raillf)

Zl. Depoaic rato

tZ. Co.c/a~ (ha) - optiOd41(a)4

Z3. PlIft"taSO COntrol (b)

Z4. Porcont defoliacion (creatod/check)

1.5. Percolltai. foliap protecCion(c)

Ontado

Z.ooo (810. hal

operaticmal

47 (vS). ZS (.F)

lI/A

Ls-l.G (B. t.)

100%

Ortbeno 8S SP + Hovobac 3ZB

Ortheae: 4 0&. a.i./ac (9.9 0&. a.1~/ha)

lfOVQbacl 8 BIV/at (U.8 BWfu)

E.A.a.

OrtbOllol 20 fl. 0&. (0.S9 I/ha)llovobacl O.S iU. U.S. (4.7 ../114)

2

8 dllya

As CAc

KiclL'Otla1r

white apruco

JUllO 16

JUllO Z4

accoptable

acceptablo

(!ovobac). Z9/cmz

$6.S3 ($16.13/ha) both IIStorWa

vS 65; b' 86

wS 69/8S: h' 80/76

vS 19; hi 0 I'j

~cl1lde cons of ac.dala aDd .ppl1ca~, \0

bAhbott •s formula: i livin! untnated - % liviD! tnnted x 100i IlvtaS unt~oat;a

~oc~od %dofoliation - oba.rved %defoliacion x 100Expocca4 %dofo11acion

.this Ust u e••enUally tho '.0 ItS that roquested by the Foroet Poet Control Fot\D.

r. ,i,

- 17 -

DAn FOR EACH SPItA! BLOC1\: !EQYESTED Foa CAlII1S" IIEPOItT

1. Proviacl or Statl

2. Ana· acra (ha)

]. Statua· 0plratloaal or espll'1meGta1

4. Pn-.pra, larval <leult,/18" branch

5. ~pray bud <lllIIltl (per .a)

6. Spray c1III1 1anal dlvllopllOClC

7. Puclilt bud flush at Ipray time(by crll I,aele.)

8. B.t. fomulatioll IClcl trul _

9. 1m IppUacl/ac:re (ha)

10. tracer ell1 usld

U. Appliacl vo1_ raci/ao" (ha)

1%. HUIllber of .pp11c:at1olll

13. time bleVIIICl .ppllc:aeloa. (clay.)

14. Aircraft type u.ael

15. Nol&la .,.t.. !&lid(booa • aozdl, ldoroaalr. acc.)

16. Pnclolll1Aaoc tnl .paell.

17. D.cI IPr'y lcarcld

18. Dati Ipray f1Cl1lhid

19. Koc cOlldltlcnts ae .pra, tilll

20. Kle cocdJ.t1ou follovt.OI 1'1'., (ra101)

21. Dapoa1e rael

22. Con/acra (ha) • ope101l&1(4)

23. Pncollull C01Ieco~(b)

24. rlrelClt dlfo111e101l (eraatecl/chack)

25. PncIClca,1 folia.. pcococe101l(c)

Ooeario

490 (198 hal

operadoaal

27 (vS)

H/A

100%

Tlwric1de 168

4 1m (9.9 8m/ha) + ].5 BlU (8.7 Btu/ha)

0.5 sal. u.s. + 0.4 sal. u.s. (4.7 1 +4.1 l/ha)

2

12

As cat

Hlc:rolld.r ,vll1tl spruCI

JUIII 12

Juu 24

acceptabll

acclptabll

H/A

$6.]0 ($15.56/ha)

58-75%

12-38/75

49-84

IIncludl coaca of 1I4torlala IClcl a,pllcac1oa

~bott'. fOPlll1a: % UViDI uatnated - % liViD, treacld x 100% 1iviDi uatreatld

TIlil 1iat 11 1.IGIltlally tho ._ as chat requestGd by che Forlse Pese Coaecol Fotul.

- 18 -

DATA FOR EAC1l SPIlAY BLOCIt REQUUTm FOR CANUSA auoaT

, I

I'",I

"

1. Provinco o~ Staco

2. Ana - .en. (114)

3. Stacua - opeQtiGDa1 or 8Xt'edlllaatal

4. 'r_pray 1.eval c1aultyl18" brllOch

S. P~,uy bud deulty (pu cal)

6. S,ray tiM laeval d."eloplllClQc

7• Pucal: bud fb.b at .,ray tllH(by cree sped...)

8. B.~. fonulacloll IIl4 tndo IllIIIllI

9. Bm ."Ue4I'CN (ba)

10. Tracer dye \lMd

U. App11ad wllDa ncelacN (ba)

U. lI\IlIIbar of .ppUcac1oll.

13. Tima botvUll ap,l1caclou (4a1')

14. Almrafc cype taa8d

15. Nozzle .y,cOll a.ed(~ , 110I:11., 1l1cr01lur, acc.)

16. Predol:l1Dallc cree .,ecLa.17. Daca .,oy atareed

18. Date .,ny flll~cd

19. Hac coll41t1ou ae.: .pra,. cillla,"

20. Kac coadlclOll. foUov1D1I spray (raut)

U. Depodc nco

U. Co.clacR (114) _ o,Ciollu(a)

23. Pe~c8llcasa coac~l(b)

24. PucelUl'defoUatiClll (cnace4lcbeck)

U. Percaneap fo1lasa p~UCC1Cl11(c)

Gauno

34 (14 114)

operational

41 (vS)

tf/A

Lt.-LS

100%

Thunc1de 168

4 Btu (9.9 Bmlha)

O.S Sal. U.S. (4.7 1{ba)

2

6

'avaa.

wblc. sprue.

Jae 13

J\Ill. 19

accepcable

acceptable

81A

$13. 78 ($34.~lba)

481

91173

0%

*tIlelu4a eon. of uconw .114 a"Uc:ac:1Clll

bAbbotC'. fo~.: X 11vial untreated - %livia, t~eeced x 1002: lIViDs \Illtnat.d

cExpeccod 1 detoll.cion - ob.orved %dotollacloa x 100Expected %dofo11atlO11

tbla Un 1a e••8Ilc1ally tbe 1_ 41 thac tllq\lOlSced by che FORae Pelt Cont~l Fotulll.

r

- 19 -

1. ProviDeo or SUto

DATA FOil EACll spur Btol% llEgutSTED FOR. c.unJSA aEPORT

sIlo.

NIl..

op.ratloaal

550 (223 ha)

J. Statu. - oporat1ooa1 or exporimental

4. 'n-spra, lar/al dudty/18" braach

5. Pn-spra, bud deader (per .1)

6. Spra, e1llo larval dovolopallt

7. Poreolle bud flush at .pra, t1llo(b, tno opoe1oo)

8. iI. t. forwlat1oo aa4 endo _

1001

IIovobac 321

9. Btu applied/acro (ha) 8 BtU (19.8 BlIJ/ba)

10. 1'racor 4yo used

11. Applied vol_ raco/acro (ha)

12. Humbor of app11caeloma

13. f1llle bocvon appUcat10aa (days)

0.5 Sal. U.S. (4.7 1/ha)

1

14. A1reraft typo used

15. IIonlo syotOlll " ...4(boota , nozzl0. Ill1croaatr. etc.)

16. 'rodoa1aant treo spocioo

lUerooa1r

Whlt. spruce I

18. Dato .pray f1a1obed JUIlO 25

19. HtIt coadltloaa ae .pray t1lll0 1Ic:c:opeablo

20. !fee coadleloaa foUovilll .puy (raiD!) accepeabl.

21. Depoll1t rato

22. eo.c/acro 1h.a) - oPt~(a)

23. Poreaneaso coocrol(b)

24. Porcollt dofol14tl:. (treotod/choek)

25. POrcOllcaso foUa.o prot.ctiaG(e)

NIl..

$4.22. ($10.42/11a)

NIl.

HIA

*tAcludo cooca of lIatenw and .,,11eae1oa

bAbbote •• fol'llll1a: Z U,,1Illl Il1Itroacod - :1 Uvial treated x 100i UVial wl1:roaeed

octed % doto11atloo - observed :1 dotoliattoa x 100Expocced %doto Latio.

Tbis lilt ia essent1a11y the .~ •• chat re~uestad by cho Porest 'ost Coatrol Fo~.

2I

TABLE 3

EFFICACY . OF 1979 B. t. TRIALS - MAINE

LARVAL APPL. RATE,DENSITY, BIUIRA TOTAL PERCENTAGE

FORMULATION Per Br (NO. APPLS. ) Pop. Red. Defo1. Protection

THURICIDE 16B wS, rS 5-12; bF 13-26 20 (1) 16; 17 29 ; 66 37; 3

THURICIDE 328 wS, rS 10; bF 21 20 (1) 0; 56 9; 79 80; 0

DIPEL 88 wS, rS 18; bF 24 20 (1) 0; 25 31; 44 33; 35

~

---....,."."...._._~-- - ~--.__ .

,l.

- 21 -

1. trovlael or SCaCe

Z. &rea - "r.. (ha)

I; 3. Sueu - operae101U1 or .~d:Ilueu

4. l'n...pn,. latYu d_dey/18" brmcb

S. P~pra,. bud daaale,. (per .1)

6. Spl:ay d.M la&"lu d""lo~c

7. Pueue bud flub ae .pray e1llla(by en••,.uu)

8. B.C. fo~e1oa &ad cradl aa:e

9. aID applied/acre (ha)

LO. rnclr dye IISM

11. AtJpUa4 voL=- ne./act. (ha)

U. N_be.: of ap,l1cacloa,

U. ria bec_ &9PUcae1ofta •

L4. A1rcrafc e,.,. 111-.1

U. So••l. .,.eees ~d(booa , ooll1e, lIl1c:roaaLJ:, ICC.)

16. Pnd.olll1aaae ene .,"1..

U. O.ee .,ra,. .e&:;a4

la. Dace Ifray flAi.hM.

19. !fie c:oadie~ .e .pray eUla

10. ~e caaA:LelCllU foUoVlq .pray (nJAt)4

U. Ilapodc nee

12. eoae/acre (hal - ope101l&1 -

161-19,100 len., 313 tlNdc:1d. - ],00031C 01,eL - L2,ooo

16B - oplrae1olU1,]21 - U\llrtcla4e41

(511 aacla.ed repore fOl: prespra,. eCUQesfOl: ..ell enaC:letle vadacloll)

rl.k 4ell (Index ].8~.O)

IAdu - 4.0 Ur, 4.4 "1l1ee ~ruea.

1.a R:ad .,ruel

tIlllr1d.de - 16B, t1llldc1de - ]%3,01'11 - 321

a 1m

Edo Add BIId 1.a 01pll ]21

168 - 80 fl. 01.]15 - 64 U. 01.

1

P1% - Qh1el "C'lCI - 8lId .,nea, eJeclpeTbudcUe ]%1 creaClll8l1c var1aeloe, - f1r •lad-alack - InUca .pnea

a.c••pray operae1oa baSaD 5/11/79

B.C••pray oparacloa camp1aeld S/17/i9161 - S/13, 32B 01pe1 - S/22,328 ~dc14a - S/17

1-17 .ph ViAd. 10-U·C; ]8-91 !II

All Blacks - rlL1a VletL1.a 36 bAN"l:S

S.c. 1" Block ses - 14.13 dropLaes cal,BtL - 17.30 droplacs c:1, "Be-U. BC-T. BC-D - Oepoele aoc A.dlquate

coae filUre/acra an aoe Ivatlab1e 1ICllU'Cllnlae coeeface an-anS_Iac vicllappUcaeors

eoee f~. Iv&llab1e;eo.e ot fa=lI1&e1oa

II delivlr"

16B 9.30/Sal.]13 9.]0/aal.

A.cus PU ua1cof fonNlle1oe

14

AI/AI:.-=­

8 BIDaBm

S2!s.4.652.]3

23. PUClee",1 Caccrol !!:.13.1]9.014.7

Spnca

ooo

Abbocc'. OCber QuGsc10aabli De,.

14. Perc.Gel,. taU..,. ~mee"1OQ - Be-, _ ]4% SavedBt-L - 0: Savedac-o 40% Saved

TABLE 4

... EFFICACY OF 1979 B. t. TRIALS - UNIV. OF MAINE

FORMULATION

LARVALDENSITY.Per Dr

APPL. RATEBIU/HA TOTAL(NO. APPLS.)

PERCENTAGEPop. Red. Defo1. Protection

THURICIDE 16B bF 72 bF 71 65 33rS 26 20 (1) rS 19 50 46

THURICIDE 16B + Chit1nase bF 71 20 + 81.5 mg bF 64 68 31rS 25 (1) rS 13 53 43

THURICIDE-16n + ACEPHATE bF 67 20 + 56 gm bF 69 54 47rS 27 (1) rS 41 41 55

Population densitites extreme

1NN

- 23 -

.DATA roa EACH SPRAY BLOC¥: REQUESTED FOa. CANUSA REl'Oat

2. Ana - acres (ba)

4. ,"-.pray larval d.adty/1S" braac"

5. Pr....pray bud deadty (per r)6. Spray tim- larval ....lop11.llt

7. Percnt bud flus" at apray time(by tre. epeel..)

B. B. t. fonulactoll mel trade 1llIDII

9. ltu appl1ed/acre (ha)

10. Tracer d,. 1IN4

U. App111d vol_ rat./acre (ha)

U. Ifua1Ier of app11cael_

13. T1lIIe b.twea appl1catlCIQI (clayl)

14. U:craft type used

15. lou1. ayeeal used(boQII , Iloula, lII1~r, ate.)

16. Predom1lumt tr•• ap.ct...

17. Oat••pray .tart.d.

18. Dat••pray ftotalled

19. Het cOlldltlC11l8 ae apray c1llle

20. Hee c0D41t1_ fo11ov1aS .pray (ra1ll7)

21. Dctpodt rat.

22. Cole/acre (ba) - opt1011al(a)

23. 'erceocas. colltrol(b)

24. 'e:callt dafo1ud.oao (treated/check)

15. ParcnuS' fo11q. pC'Otecttoll(C)

40 Ile P 1-5

br 7%; rS 26

lfD

100%

T1wdc1d. 168

20/ba

1111

4.7 &/ba

1

o

leU Ci' beUcopcer

8&11, T•• Jat S003

Ial... fir - re4 .pruc:ll

JIIll. 2

JIIll.2

o ell'''

bll&V)' rm

7.6 drop1et./~2

lID

b' 71; rS 18.6

bF 6"100; rS '0/96

bF 33; rS 46

IzIlclude co.t. of C1at.r1a1a aud appl1catloll

bAllbote•• fonlll1&: % 1191115 IIlltre.ee4 - % 1111'10, treated 1t 100t 1111'101 IIlltr.at.d

.ct.d %defol1at1oll - observed %defoliatlO1l 1t 100Expectod 1 doto utloa

Tb1a U.se 18 ....anal1y tile ••• as tbat reqtlll.ced by tile For••e Pa.e Coutro1 FOrlm.

- 24 -

DAtA FDa EACK SPRAY BtDCX !\EQUESTED FOil CANUSA REPoat

&znc1ud. costs of alit_rial. and application

bAbbott'l fonN1&: % l1vin, untreated - :I living treated x. 100

% 1iviDI uatra4ted

~.cc.d :I defoliation - observed %defoliation x 100Expectod %defoliation

th1a liat is ....nt1a11y the ._ at that nquosted by tb. ronat r.a1t Coacl'Ol Fon=.

I,,,

II:

It Ii I,

i

1. 'wv1l:lce o~ State

2. Are4 - Gna (ha)

3. Stacus - ope~lItloQ4l o~ experllaentll1

4. ,"-spray larval doulty/18" b~lIIlch

S. 'n-llpray bill! deulty (pn r)6. Sp~ay tiae larval developtlltl1lt

7. 'O""t bu4 fluah at sp~ay tma(by t~.e speci..)

8. B.t. foClllU1atiou aDd t~ade a_

9. IIU app11ad/ocr. (ha)

10. 'rrG.r 4y. IIMd

11. AppUocl w1U11l8 rau/acr. (ha)

U. HUllIber of app1lcatou

13. T1ae between app11eacloas (days)

14. AUcralt type I1HCl

15. Noule syscea usedOJ- , aoule, m.C\'oulr, .tc.)

16. 're4oa1aaat tree specics

17• n.te sprllJ' staRed

18. Date spra, ftAUbed

19. K.c co,,41t1011O at spray tiae

20. Kat coa41tloas follov1q spray (ra1nt)

21. Depol1t ratl

22. Cost/acn (ha) _ opt1oual(a)

23. P.rcentale coqtr~l(b)4

24. Percent def0114t1aD (treacad/check)

U. '.~clnt:ale foliage pl'Ot.ctloa(c)

Jolm DtlIIond - Kalae

40 ba - • 6-10

bF 71: rS U

NO

100

Thuric14a 161 - c:h1tiuse

20 BIU + 81.S as cbltluse/ba

HU

4.7 &/ba

1

1

Bell as hellcoptar

B&II, f •• Jet 8003

8ala_ fir &ad rod IpNC.

JUll.2

JUllO 3

wind 1-2 mph

heavy sbGwers

9.7 droplats/ea2

NO

bF 64: rS 13.1

bF 68/100; rS 53/96

bF 31:1:5 43

irl!.r

["

i'

-25

DATA roll EACK SPlAY BtoCK l1E!l!JES'!!D FOa CAIlUSA REPC1l'f

1. Provillca or Stilt.

2. Aru - acr.. (ba)

J. StatU - op.nt1oaa1 or .1qIor1luftcal

4. Pn pny larval 4.asLty/Un brmcb

S. Pr pray bud 4eaalty (pn -a)6. Spray cia larval 4.901o,....t

7. Perceac bud flll8b at .,ray cime(by tte. apect.a)

e. B.~. foc:n&1atLoQ m4 t1'acl. a••

9. BIll appl1e4/acn (ba)

10. trac.l' 4)'. lI8e4

U. AppUe4 yoll1M race/acn (ba)

12. YUl:lHr of appl1cae1011a

13. Time beneea a"l1"t1ollS (4ay.)

14. ALRI'Aft type uaod

IS. Kozll••y.t-. ua.d(&00. 6 aonl•• alcroaalr•.•cc.)

16. Pradoa1aaDt trl. .pect••

17. Dac••puy .tartod

18. Date .pray fiabh.4

19. Kee clllldittoca at Ipr.,. c1ae

20. Kat COGcI1tlou foll0vt0s Ipray (raiafO

21. Depoa1e rat.

2Z. eoat/lcr. (ba) - opt1oaa1(a)

tJ. PeROllcas. c~trol(b)

14. P.reftt defoliat1oJl (tnaced/cuck)

2S. Perceacaae foluS. protecc1011(c)

Jolm D1=o1ld - lta1n.

40 ba - P U-U

bF 67: 1'5 27

100

'tbul'lc1d. 168 + acophata

20 Btu + S6 sa ac.phac./ba

9U

4.7 1/ba

1

o

lieU CS be~copcer

HR. 'I.. J.t 8003

lIalsall fir lAd red .pJllt.

JUDe 3

JlIIIO 4

'lbd 1-2 apb

110 raia

bF 69.: 1'5 41.2

bF 54/100: 41/96

br 47: rS 5S

~c1ud. COltl of aterial. aa4 appl1cac1oQ

bAbbott'. foClllU1a: % l1V1ns ulltnacod - % l1v1ng er04eld x 100X11v1D1 lIII.e1'..el4

ceed %dofo11ae10a - obaerved 1 clefol1atioll x 100Exp.ces % 4 oUae104

nil li1e is ....ae1aUy ehe ... as chae requeued by ehq Forese Pesc Collcrol Forum.

TABLE 5

EFFICACY OF 1979 B. t. TRIALS - NEW BRUNSWICK, FPL

LARVAL :APPL. RATE,bENSITY, BIU lIlA TOTAL PERCENTAGE

FORMULATION Per Dr (NO. APPLS.) Pop. Red. Defol. Prot.

THURICIDE l6B** wS 44 wS 86 49 0(5 plots) bF 20 20 (1) bF 67 58 0

rS 19 rS 75 28 0

DIPEL 88 wS 38- wS 95 33 38bF 21 bF 97 22 54

N

rS 7 40 (1) rS 80 23 20 0\

I

DIPEL 45B + SORBITOL bF 26 bF 99 22 54bS 6 22.2 (1) bS 58 28 ND

** Heavy rains after spray